Court backs jurors in negligence decision

Damages don't have to be awarded to adult children

The fact that jurors find a defendant negligent does not automatically require them to award damages, the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled.

In a unanimous ruling, the justices upheld the decision to provide no money to the adult children of a man who died as the result of medical malpractice.

Justice John Pelander, writing for the court, noted the jurors did award $1 million to Elizabeth Walsh, the widow.

He acknowledged that the children did testify about what the loss of their father meant to them, testimony that was not disputed by the other side.

But Pelander said that did not make the jurors wrong in concluding the children were entitled to no money. He said the judge hearing the case has certain powers to alter the award if he believes the jurors were mistaken.

Court records show Jerome and Elizabeth Walsh lived in Minnesota and wintered in Arizona. He underwent heart surgery in 2003.

Jerome became ill while in Arizona the next winter and was treated by physicians employed by Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered.

After he returned to Minnesota, doctors determined his replacement valve was infected. He died a day after being admitted to a Minnesota hospital.

After the trial, the children sued because of the zero verdict.

Their attorney acknowledged that a verdict awarding no damages may be appropriate in some wrongful-death cases. But the lawyer argued that the children are entitled to a new trial because of the uncontested testimony about their close, loving relationship with their father.

Pelander said Arizona's wrongful-death laws say the jury "shall give such damages as it deems fair and just" to the surviving parties.

He also said that Arizona cases generally prohibit juries from rejecting undisputed evidence. But Pelander said that is not absolute.

For example, he said, a witness may have a personal interest in a case.

"In this case, the jury might have accepted the children's testimony about their loss, but nonetheless decided, given all the circumstances, that awarding no damages was fair and just," Pelander wrote for the court. .

"The children are interested witnesses, and the jury may thus have discounted their testimony on that ground," the judge explained.

"The jury verdict awarding no damages to the children was not impermissible as a matter of law," he wrote.

The ruling, however, is not necessarily the last word.

Pelander said the trial judge, as a "ninth juror, is in the best position to determine whether a jury verdict is arbitrary and, when appropriate, grant a motion for a new trial."

But in this case, he said, the trial judge did not make that decision.